Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals

Can, Özlem Selvi; Yılmaz, Ali Abbas; Hasdoğan, Menekşe; Alkaya, Filiz; Turhan, Sanem Çakar; Can, Mehmet Fatih; Alanoğlu, Zekeriyya

doi:10.1097/eja.0b013e32833fb96f

Cited by 74 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, less than 5% of the abstracts provided sufficient information for participants, outcome in the methods section, randomization, and trial registration. This pattern of inadequate reporting is generally in line with findings of several previous studies in dentistry [9,13,14] and other specialties [15][16][17], and indicates a lack of awareness of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines among researchers in the filed of laser medicine.…”

Section: Overall Reporting Qualitysupporting

confidence: 87%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals, and investigate the association between potential predictors and reporting quality. A total of 129 RCT abstracts were included and assessed. The mean OCS was 4.5 (standard deviation, 1.3). Only three quality items (interventions, objective, conclusions) were reported adequately in most abstracts (>80%). No abstract adequately reported results for the primary outcome, source of funding, and status of the trial. In addition, sufficient reporting of participants, outcome in the methods section, randomization, and trial registration was rare (<5%). According to multivariable linear regression analysis, the specialty area of RCT abstracts was significantly associated with their reporting quality (P=0.008).The reporting quality of RCT abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals is suboptimal. Joint efforts by authors, editors and other stakeholders in the field to improve trial abstract reporting are needed.

show abstract

Section: Overall Reporting Qualitysupporting

confidence: 87%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One such study compared abstracts from high-impact medical journals to the corresponding full-text article and found numerous errors and/or omissions [5], which is consistent with more recent studies [12]. Eurthermore, numerous studies have assessed the quality or accuracy of different specialty journals outside the medical profession [11,[13][14][15][19][20][21][22], including pharmacy journals [4].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 60%

Pharmacy journal abstracts published in PubMed that abide by the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines

Blair¹,

Hughes²,

Woolley³

2014

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to determine the proportion of abstracts in pharmacy journals that are prepared according to the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for abstracts. Certain abstracts for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) indexed in PubMed were eligible for inclusion, with the primary endpoint being median overall compliance to CONSORT recommendations for abstracts. A total of 63 RCT abstracts were included in the analysis, with only 56% of the recommended CONSORT items represented in the sample. It is recommended that pharmacy journals encourage authors to follow CONSORT recommendations for abstracts when submitting RCTs for publication.

show abstract

“…However, unlike our findings, findings in several similar studies showed no or only slight improvement in RCT abstract reporting over time. 13,30 One possible reason for this difference is the starting date (July 2010) we chose for the post-CONSORT group, which was much later than that in the studies just mentioned. Considering the time needed for dissemination and endorsement of relevant guidelines, and the time usually spent from paper drafting to final publication, a time frame of more than 30 months should be more capable of revealing the true difference between the periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts

Hua¹,

Deng²,

Kau³

et al. 2015

The Journal of the American Dental Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals

Abstract: Despite some promising improvements and inter-journal differences, the overall quality of RCT abstracts and adherence to the CONSORT checklist for abstracts remains poor.

Cited by 74 publications

References 28 publications

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts published in leading laser medicine journals: an assessment using the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines

Pharmacy journal abstracts published in PubMed that abide by the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About